Bolitics The New Condem Government

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

My gut tells me Dave and Nick fancy a run at some of the oil fields out east before the Americans gather up enough resources to claim the whole area...

I love a good conspiracy though.

[Chindie]

Quite true but playing devils advocate you could argue that this move is actually putting that view into action.....

Who knows, I sure as hell don't I don't know enough on this topic. My gut feeling is this is about saving money and little else but it is possible that this move is about more than that although with my lack of trust in the motivation of the policies of this government I'm not so sure.

One thing is for sure we can't depend on the French.

The only view this prepares for is one where Britain gives up on bothering with the world and steps down from the top end of things.

I agree that the whole thing is glorious doublespeak. It's trying to spin a complete hash of an idea in a manner that is somehow kind of good.

I also think that part of the thing that is pushing this move, along with the obvious 'Shit, the military's gone down the shitter and only oing to get worse, erk!', is the worry that the US has had it with Europe. They already are pretty much Europes security guarentee and I sense there is a shortening of the patience with that situation that could eventually snap. Especially with the US increasingly concerned with the Pacific even more than their standard hegemonic position would suggest. We've looked to France in case it really does end up with Europe out in the cold. Theres even an argument you could run with that dictates some thinking of NATO being wound up as a serious gambit.

It's all a tad pathetic. It's penny pinching wrapped up in bow and a nice bag and a McDonalds smile. And terrifyingly it coul leave us in the shit if something big goes wrong in years to come.

[chrisp65]

I just don't see how it's going to work in real life.

If the french surrender on the same week they are in charge of the aircraft carrier what do we do the next week?

Ask for it back?

[LondonLax]

I just don't see how it's going to work in real life.

If the french surrender on the same week they are in charge of the aircraft carrier what do we do the next week?

Ask for it back?

Sink it of course!

Anyway, I'm all for sharing miltary. Combining forces and saving money on duplication. The UK and France spend a disproportionate ammount on military compaired to most nations anyway.

[Ads]

A governments first and most critical duty to its citizens is to protect them.

Militarily? According to whom?

A governments ability to rule comes from its ability to monopolise violence. This applies to external threats as well as internal, so yes military.

[Ads]

My thinking is that this is not 1500, or 1800, or even 1900. We're in 2010, and perhaps the biggest threat to "British citizens" would be from terrorism.

We don't need a huge army, or massive amounts of nuclear warheads or submarines to counter that IMO.

What about 2020? Or 2030? Etc etc.

Only fools prepare their military in line with what is already happening. The world view can change far quicker than you can react to adapt to it.

I see this as a part of the jam tomorrow view we’ve taken on defence where we effectively withdraw from the world stage until 2020.

[TrentVilla]

I just don't see how it's going to work in real life.

If the french surrender on the same week they are in charge of the aircraft carrier what do we do the next week?

Ask for it back?

Sink it of course!

Anyway, I'm all for sharing miltary. Combining forces and saving money on duplication. The UK and France spend a disproportionate ammount on military compaired to most nations anyway.

Wouldn't be the first time we upset the French by sinking their boats while working together.... would it

[peterms]

It's money driven and short termist.

Which is a line that applies to just about everything this government has done so far.

Oh no.

Money driven, yes. Short term, no.

The whole point is a long-term redistribution of power and wealth from poorer to richer.

There's a clear strategy being pursued here, and their evident general incompetence shouldn't make us feel they can't actually achieve a large part of their narrower aims.

[snowychap]

A governments ability to rule comes from its ability to monopolise violence.

Again, according to whom?

You throw out maxims as though they were indisputable truths.

They may all fit your political ideology but other than explaining your stance on something, they are rather meaningless.

[Ads]

A governments ability to rule comes from its ability to monopolise violence.

Again, according to whom?

You throw out maxims as though they were indisputable truths.

They may all fit your political ideology but other than explaining your stance on something, they are rather meaningless.

Its something I’ve adapted from Norbert Elias. Its a contradiction to suggest they’re meaningless and also say they outline my views. I am expressing my opinion, I don’t dress it up as absolute truth- that’s your interpretation.

[snowychap]

Its a contradiction to suggest they’re meaningless and also say they outline my views.

It's a good job that I said the following, then:

...other than explaining your stance on something, they are rather meaningless.

No contradiction at all.

The only meaning they have is in explaining your stance, other than that, they are rather meaningless, these variations upon a repeated orthodoxy that is the preface to every political statement in the last few decades by every nation of whatever ilk regarding that nation's military, national security, thoughts on allowing torture, departure from due process, &c.

I don’t dress it up as absolute truth

In which case, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for each occasion that it was unclear that you hadn't done.

[Ads]

They offer a glimpse into my views on the subject and the importance of defence and where this as a priority should lie for any government. Its based on the idea of violence monopolisation. If you take no substantive meaning from it or neither wish to discuss that premise, then that’s your choice. My opinions are always posted to be knocked down.

[snowychap]

My opinions are always posted to be knocked down.

I'd hate to be so cruel and vindictive.

As an avowed and unabashed pacifist, I have to admit that my views about this area of policy are so utterly prejudiced that my contribution to what it ought to be (in terms of priority) are probably not worth putting forward.

As for what you said: I was trying to point out that these things that you were saying were political clichés and as such were rather meaningless (apart from giving the glimpse, a hardly necessary one - and that's not meant to be pejorative but just an indication that I acknowledge the content of a lot of your posts and thus realize your bent for military issues, into your views). To differentiate your views from what is undoubtedly often just political rhetoric and soundbite, it might be of interest as to why you stress the military/violence aspect of the potential meaning of the phrases that you use instead of, for example, those things which Jon mentioned (or protecting a way of life, &c.).

I actually think there is a place for the idea that the duty of a government is to protect its citizens (in terms of it [the government] working in the public good, or rather for the good of all the public) but I certainly wouldn't want to be limiting the protection to something about physical security (be that externally or internally via the military, national security or law).

[Awol]

Long post warning...

A governments first and most critical duty to its citizens is to protect them.

Militarily? According to whom?

According to political theory since the year dot. The reason states originally coalesced was the provision of common defence against external threats. Protecting the citizenry is the raison d’être of government and also the only reason we originally started to pay income tax - ironically during a war against France. Pacifists don’t have to like that, but denying it is the case makes any subsequent debate virtually impossible.

To decide whether the agreement with France is a good idea or not we need to think about the following basic questions:

Is it necessary?

Well that would depend on whether our current arrangements are sufficient to fully protect the UK national interest. To paraphrase Lord Palmerston: "Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests."

The past decade would suggest that our alliance with the US is more one sided than we would like (see Hilary Clinton’s recent performance over “Las Malvinas” while our blokes are being killed daily in Afghanistan) and that we have an unhealthy and misplaced dependence on that country. It makes sense therefore to explore other bilateral or multi-national avenues for defence that are potentially outside of NATO, not to replace but to complement existing arrangements with something that is more balanced.

The global picture is unstable and becoming more so, both in terms of terrorism by non-state actors but also as other powers with ideology that doesn’t match our own (democracy, human rights, free trade etc) arm themselves and flex their muscles. State on state warfare has been declared a thing of the past almost annually since the end of the cold war, and every year a fresh conflict has broken out. That being the case we must still prepare ourselves for that eventuality and do so on a budget that is limited by the spending choices that we as a society make.

In conclusion greater cooperation with other parties is desirable if it makes a qualitative difference to UK defence capability.

Is this agreement workable?

As Chrisp65 has alluded to, what happens if a crisis affecting either party occurs and the other doesn't agree to the deployment of military force? By one party relying on the other to fulfill specific military capabilities we restrict our respective ability to undertake independent action. Our national interests will not always align and we will not know until a given crisis occurs whether or not one party will support the others position. It’s a recipe for disaster IMO and a situation that makes a mockery of contingency planning - the stock in trade of every competent military force.

What do we stand to gain?

Saving money, although that premise is fundamentally flawed if it leaves us unable to defend our interests abroad. In simple terms we’ve taken UK Plc off fully comp and gone third party, fire and theft. It might feel good to save a percentage on the insurance policy but deep down you know it’s a gamble.

I’m not against the principle of greater defence cooperation with EU nations in general if it truly enhances UK security. Had we agreed by 2020 to field a combined carrier force of four ships (all with aircraft on!) and the full range of capability that goes with that then I'd be looking at this whole thing very differently. It would provide UK/France (and by extension Europe) with a naval capability second only to the US, and a voice in trade and diplomacy worldwide that was genuinely influential and beneficial to the UK. Clearly that is not what this agreement implies, and we are in fact pooling the resources of two UN P-5 members in order to create the deployable military force of one medium sized country.

What do we stand to lose?

Potentially we lose the ability to act independently in even a limited fashion. This will not be particularly obvious until the next strategic shock comes down the road, at which point we’ll have an “emperor has no clothes” moment. The consequences of that may be limited and are very unlikely to be existential, but without a crystal ball that’s impossible to predict. I would suggest however that it’s a risk too far.

In the event of getting our arses handed to us somewhere in the world then the main risk is a loss of prestige on the international stage, where the ability to deploy hard power ultimately underpins the way other nations interact with us and the influence we can project (soft power). The main areas where we currently benefit from this are diplomacy and helping to shape international trade to our national advantage.

In addition as Blandy has said we may well lose some of the limited technology transfer benefits we have currently with the US. R & D is a very expensive business and it provides a considerable saving to piggy back on the US taxpayer and gain access to all sorts of gizmos we definitely want to have. If we go into R & D with the French it will cost us far more and when it comes to building the product you can bet the French will get the lions’ share of the work, further thinning out our organic skills base in this field.

On balance does it benefit the UK?

I think not. Again to pick up on Blandy’s post I think the comment that Europe is a busted flush is pertinent and we may be purchasing a ticket on the Titanic. Europe has not been serious about national defence since 1990, having grown accustomed to the warm blanket of US provided security and enabling the focus of spending to be on social programmes. It is wrong to take this as a given and many commentators predict the US is on the verge of real economic trouble. If that analysis bears out they are likely to look at where to best target their resources for their own national interests, and our frequently anti-American continent is likely to take a back seat in terms of their defence priorities.

Clearly Europe (and China for that matter) has similar financial problems and if the Dollar goes down it is likely to take everyone else with it. The last time we had economic instability on that scale it all ended rather badly, and although this is finger in the air stuff, we may find ourselves attached to a basket case whose interests we are committed to defending but who are themselves unprepared to put in the heavy lifting (sound familiar, Levi?).

What are the alternatives?

For my money, it’s the Commonwealth. A collection of nations we have greater friendly historical ties to than any European nations and including a country that will soon be one the big three superpowers. Between us we have high technological capability, huge internal markets, much better demographics and vast natural resources. I’d be far more confident from a security perspective were we flashing our knickers at India and the old Anglo-sphere than anyone across the channel.

It’s a defensive alliance that has worked rather effectively in the past, twice.

[Jon]

I just don't see how it's going to work in real life.

If the french surrender on the same week they are in charge of the aircraft carrier what do we do the next week?

Ask for it back?

Sink it of course!

Anyway, I'm all for sharing miltary. Combining forces and saving money on duplication. The UK and France spend a disproportionate amount on military compared to most nations anyway.

Yup. This is why it makes sense to me.

Weakening of our military might though is not really a Tory philosophy. At least, it didn't used to be.

This is obviously mainly driven by economies, buit ideologically this sits fantastically at home with me, and therefore must really irk the Tory faithful ...

[kidlewis]

both military groups have spent plenty of time on the front line together, in history gone by against each other, last century together and more recently in Kosovo was it?

I don't think there are too many issues of testing nukes between us. we have enough between us to wipe the world out. I think going forward we might see a more specialist task force as only countries like the USA, China and Russia seem to have the belief you need a monster army with a ridiculous number of tanks etc.

less is more maybe?

1000 SAS troops or 10,000 normal infantry. I'd take the smaller elite force myself. Maybe that is because I played too much C&C

[Jon]

My thinking is that this is not 1500, or 1800, or even 1900. We're in 2010, and perhaps the biggest threat to "British citizens" would be from terrorism.

We don't need a huge army, or massive amounts of nuclear warheads or submarines to counter that IMO.

What about 2020? Or 2030? Etc etc.

Only fools prepare their military in line with what is already happening.

Well, i'd imagine and hope that a degree of forward planning and thinking had also gone into this decision!?

I'm no expert on this at all. It just sits well with my political philosophy and leanings.

[Awol]

Weakening of our military might though is not really a Tory philosophy. At least, it didn't used to be.

Something of a myth there, Jon. 1981 They planned to gut the RN and only some ill advised action by the Argies prevented it from going ahead. Fast forward to the end of the Cold War and John Major's "Options for Change" gutted the army like a wet fish. To be sure the intervening period of Labour Government continued that trend but the idea that the (post war) Tories are friends of the armed forces is one of the biggest political cons ever foisted on the UK!

This is obviously mainly driven by economies, buit ideologically this sits fantastically at home with me, and therefore must really irk the Tory faithful ...

I think that post neatly reflects the problem with the thinking around defence. Looking at political advantage to be gained or lost from a certain position is simply bizarre. Political ideology and the reality of military operations are as divorced from each as chalk and cheese. Trying to dictate the latter through the imposition of the former is guaranteed to cause a total cluster **** when the chips are down. It's national defence not party political defence, and the debate would be far more rational if people saw it in those terms.

[Jon]

It's national defence not party political defence, and the debate would be far more rational if people saw it in those terms.

I see it in those terms AWOL. It's just that a massive reduction in miltary spending would sit well with me, ideologically.

My limited knowledge of world and security affairs thinks this is practical and beneficial too, along similar lines to Kid Lewis above.

[Jon]

the idea that the (post war) Tories are friends of the armed forces is one of the biggest political cons ever foisted on the UK!

Yet I would think most voters believe this to be the case, including perhaps yourself when you posted a few days ago that you didn't vote Tory to see them slash the defencfe budget!

Whether true or not, I would guess most people/voters would see the Tories as more predisposed to protecting the armed forces than Labour or Lib Dem.

I certainly think that.